9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh Chimnani, CA And Shri Yash Kukreja, CA For the Revenue : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR ORDER PER B.M. BIYANI, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 10.08.2022 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi [ Ld. CIT(A) ], which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 18.10.2018 passed by learned ACIT-4(1), Bhopal [ Ld. AO ] u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [ the Act ] for Assessment-Year [ AY ] 2013-14, the assessee has filed this appeal. 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case records perused. 3. Briefly stated the facts are such that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacture of detergent bar and power, having 3 manufacturing units situated at (i) Dhule, (ii) Baddi Unit-I, and (iii) Baddi Unit-II. For the relevant AY 2013-14, the assessee filed original return of income on 31.10.2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 10,09,23,510/- which was subjected to scrutiny-assessment. While filing return of income, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IC in respect of profit derived from its 2 units, namely Baddi Unit-I and Baddi Unit-II. Baddi Unit-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Income-tax Act, 1961 the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The said notice is scanned below for a quick reference: Having shown this, Ld. AR strongly contended that the case of assessee is directly and exactly covered by decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of M.P. in Pr.CIT-I, vs. Kulwant Singh Bhatia, ITA No. 9 to 14 of 208, order dated 9th May 2018, wherein it was observed and held thus: 7. It is submitted that the show-cause notice under Section 274 is not mere empty formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges against him and the case, which is required to meet out. A clear notice not only a statutory requirement but even for the purpose of principle of 'audi alteram partem' which requires that no one should be condemned unheard, a notice in clear term specifying the clear charges against an assessee is required to be given by an Assessing Officer before imposing a penalty. It was submitted that by not striking off the inapplicable clause, the learned Assessing Officer has left the matter open for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra). It is further pointed out that the SLP filed by the Deptt. before the Apex Court on 5.8.2016 in the matter of CIT V/s. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (supra) was dismissed. In the case of CIT V/s. Suresh Chandra Mittal, (2000) 251 ITR 9 (SC), the Apex Court has upheld the decision of M.P. High Court wherein, in similar circumstances, it was held that the initial burden lies on the revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In the present case, in show-cause notice the Assessing Officer has not specified specifically charges, there was no such mention. 9. Considering the aforesaid, the Tribunal has held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 is not sustainable in law, as no specific charge was levied in penalty show-cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment order, Ld. AR demonstrated that the AO issued first query letter u/s 142(1) on 05.08.2015 but much prior to that, the assessee had already paid additional tax on 28.02.2015 and also filed rectified return on 04.04.2015. This shows that the assessee has voluntarily rectified the mistake in computing quantum of deduction prior to detection by AO. That apart, Ld. AR argued, the assessee has neither concealed the particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The only mistake which had occurred on the part of assessee was such that the assessee did not consider brought forward losses in calculating the quantum of deduction, which was just a bonafide in advertent mistake. Ld. AR submitted that all facts and figures of current year income as well as of brought forward losses were very much available in the original return of income filed by assessee and also on the departmental record. There is no concealment of any particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars by assessee. Relying upon Price Water House Coopers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 25 taxmann.com 400 (SC) and Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry. He submitted that it is the assessee who himself made disclosure of wrong working of deduction to AO. He submitted that the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is mere acquisition of jurisdiction for carrying out scrutiny but the actual scrutiny/examination is done by issuance of notice u/s 142(1). He submitted that in the present case, it is very clear that the assessee had voluntary disclosed correct amount of deduction before issuance of notice u/s 142(1), though after issuance of notice u/s 143(2). Ld. AR further submitted that mere issuance of scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) does not mean that the AO would have discovered each and every aspect. Had the assessee not come forward to AO, there is a strong possibility that the mistake would have escaped the attention of AO. Therefore, in the present case, the conduct of assessee should be considered holistically and judiciously and considered so, there is no concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 9. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the material held on record. On a mindful consideration, we first take note of the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
